Contradictions and inconsistencies in the quran?
-
Salaam
I actually stopped coming back to free minds because of silly wars like this. I probably still should stay away from here, I think.
This seems to be an environment where our most common greeting is just a phrase and nothign else ..... (.But reading this thread it is really very hard to stay away because things are said here that just simply hurt the limits.
Danish, when you claim a relationship to a certain piece of knowledge, be it a human philosophy, a so called sacred book, an experiment of science, you first of all need to establish the internal claims that this piece of knowledge sets.
And you can only claim a real relationship to that certain piece of knowledge when you have acquired enough knowledge and came to consistent conclusions about the internal claim of that piece of knowledge.The qur'?n, in that context, calls only those its champions who trust in its internal consistency and perfectness. This is a basic internal claim of this book and if you ever studied that book you know that!
Knowing that it is highly ironic when you call those here who try to establish that trust the biggest enemies of al qur'?n, probably in opposition to you who does not try to establish that trust.Critical thinking is allowed, questioning is allowed, but don?t dare to call yourself a follower of al qur'?n when you reject one of its most basic internal principles and don?t call those who uphold that principle enemies of the qur'?n.
This is quite ridiculous and self exposing and I am sure you know that yourself!You are free to be a believer in Allah and His qur'?n or not. Not taking the qur'?n as your map in life does not necessarily make you a bad person.
Believe in it or not. But don?t play games with it and its own established internal principles!Listing your supposed contradictions without their specific contexts shows a lack of of having dealt with the book in a more than superficial manner.
I am sorry to say it that way. I definitely don?t want to join the not so nice language here. But, see, anyone who ahs every studied the qur'?n in detail knows the importance of context and knows that the context defines the precise references of precise words.
Sura is just such a word. It is a word of quranic Arabic like any other. And the way it is used and what it refers to in detail is not conceivable without context.You should take it as a sign when even Ahmed Baghat and mquran agree in opposition to you. You know that they don?t have the same way of getting closer tot he qur'?n but since they at least both studied it they both have an agreement on its internal principles that you missed.
Furthermore, from what I can observe here it looks quite clear to me that both Ahmed Baghat and mquran have much more acquaintance with the original Arabic text than you have.
And that really settles things.
You can not solely rely on translations of others. Even if you quote several of them. Translations are always ideological. Sunni translations somtimes are quite different from Shii translations etc.
You always want others to translate for you.
Why not, if you claim to love the qur'?n, try it on your own, getting into the language?It is your own loss when you always take mquran's inquisitive questions as offensive. Instead of lecturing to you he gives you a possibility to ask your self about the inconsistencies that your viewpoint might have with internal principles of the qur'?n.
Why not just answer the questions instead of starting to talk about liers and enemies??
A good discussion is about answering questions in a sane way and not about averting any need to answer by shouting abuses.
The same applies to Ahmed's way of introducing you to the actual text.
You do know that in general I agree much more with mquran than with Ahmed in my views and that I don?t accept Ahmed?s codification of the Arabiclanguage but still I think his struggle is much more honest than yours here.
He does know his principles.This does not mean that the others here did not maybe sometimes make mistakes in the choice of their tone and words. But there is a very bg difference here
No personal offense to you. Really. Just hope that you might want to think a little bit about these liens.
But I DO feel offended A LOT, and so must anyone else, when I see someone claiming to know the qur'?n but not abiding by its own principles, accusing those who do of being enemies of the qur'?n.
This is really a very very serious offense!bye,
Leyla
-
DanishSince MQ failed miserbaly, only to bring about his frustrations and OUTCRY, I will await for MQ's "master" to respond in exactly the manner I requested earlier in my last post,
If I failed to answer you, could you show us how? Merely ranting it like a mad person doesn't make it true? Are you so devoid of substance that this is the best response you could come up with?
Danish, I feel sorry for you. I guess you're so overawed by the 'technology' and 'progress' you see around you that all this talk of scripture might seem 'pendu-ish' to you. What's even sadder is your lack of ability, willingness and objectivity to consider that you and your 'essence of nature' BUNKUM (yes, that's what it is, BUNKUM and you know it and THAT'S why you refuse to step up with it) might just be no match for The Book of Allah.
Well, exchanges with you and your ilk do help increase imaan, so its not a total waste of time...
-
ABFor MQ, thanks bro for the support you gave me agianst danish malicious, false, misleading, and fabricated lie, that I lied about the Quran, if I made a mistake then that is not a lie mister smart danish, however I can assure you that my mistakes are min and will never go beyond the count of your fingers in one hand, it is simply because I follow the literal Quran
Well, that's one thing I respect about you. You're a true defender of your beliefs. If you believe it, you're not afraid to discuss it, unlike some. Discussing with you is certainly more beneficial than discussing with intellectual cowards.
-
KGBI agree with Ahmed Baghat on what he says regarding Qur'an.. I respect and certainly of the same views that Qur'an is errorless like MQuran. It is sad to know that we are the enemy of Qur'an
Enemies huh? A guy who claims al-quraan contains contradictions yet refuses to discuss it (hit and run , thats what Danish does) has no credibility, KGB. You can witness for yourself the guts some of these people display. It's an embarassment.
-
Peace Leyla,
Very insightful post, I wish you would post more often but I can understand the hesitancy.
-
Peace all,
Ahmed has once again brutally and cunningly twisted and mocked all three verses, as it is his JOB to do. His entire pathetic understanding and analogies drum beats around ?another god?. He insists once again by his zesty flowery discourses that all 3 verses are talking about another god bringing a ?surah like it? and thus concludes that the challenge cannot be made. Firstly, these verses do not imply an iota of semblance as claimed by Ahmed (see verses below), secondly, none of my claims have been refuted by him but simply twisted around with impressive extra baggage of ?another god?, just like he did earlier twisting and circling around ?separate events and separate times? with some blah blahs, without refuting its core issue. I guess he loves to ?circumambulate? around false dogmas and yell blah blahs. What a stylish frenzy and lollipop treats to heaven.
The Quran was meant for humankind and jinnkind, not ?another god?, LOL. The Quran was written by MEN not ?another god?. The message originated from Muhammad, a human not ?another god?. The challenge Muhammad gave was to his people, not to ?another god?. What the heck are Ahmed and Mquran trying to achieve here? O I get it. The ?master-student? vendetta that teaches their own selves ?people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES about al-quraan yet claim to believe in Al-quraan's divine origin.? This crucial statement is going to haunt them forever and thank GOD for exposing it from them.
Note Although the meaning of ?god? can be several, but relevant to the discussion, only a human is venerated as ?god? as in ?a powerful ruler or a despot or a handsome man or a man having superior qualities? (check dictionary), which makes my case even stronger.
Like it or not, your refutations are just mimicries without substance as always and YES, THE CHALLENGE IS MET BY A HUMAN, NOT A GOD, WHICH SPEAKS VOLUMES AND YOU CAN DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, BUT BICKER WITH FRUSTRATIONS. PERIOD.
Pickthal
And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
Sher Ali
And if you are in doubt as to what WE have sent down to OUR servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers besides Allah, if you are truthful.Pickthal
Or say they He hath invented it ? Say Then bring a surah like unto it, and call (for help) on all ye can besides Allah, if ye are truthful.
Sher Ali
Do they say,He has forged it ?' Say,Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call for help on all you can, apart from Allah, if you are truthful.'Pickthal
Or they say He hath invented it. Say Then bring ten surahs, the like thereof, invented, and call on everyone ye can beside Allah, if ye are truthful!
Sher Ali
Do they say,He has forged it ?' Say,Then bring ten Surahs like it forged, and call on whom you can apart from Allah, if you are truthful.'ALL the above verses are talking to humans to whom the Quran speaks of, not "another god".
-
Leyla is only here to support her majnu at ANY COST. I remember the cat and mouse play some time ago.
-
What the heck are Ahmed and Mquran trying to achieve here? O I get it. The ?master-student? vendetta that teaches their own selves ?people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES about al-quraan yet claim to believe in Al-quraan's divine origin.? This crucial statement is going to haunt them forever and thank GOD for exposing it from them.
Danish, you're some kind of a desperado, aren't you? You need to resort to lies about me in order to feel big. When did I say the challenge is to 'another god' ? AB has his view which I disagree to. Why don't you address MY responses? Because you know, they will end up exposing the hollowness of your points. Why don't you call upon the 'essence of nature' (sic) to help you out there, pal? I really feel bad for those who have the misfortune of knowing you in real life.
A 'sura' is a coherent discourse about something. In this case, 2/21-22 has shown what that is, the existence of the human being in the world. His needs and what he needs to do to fulfil them. Of course, when we read in the unscientific way that you do, all we can come up with this is the typical Muhammadan tale of poetry comparison. It's just so pathetic when you think about it.
-
I believe Danish Enquirer and Agentxxx if keep posting against Qur'an deserve no reply. Ahmad Baghat has spend so much of his time explaining in detail the contradictions posted by Agentxxx and he still side with the people who post nonesence against Qur'an. People who believe Qur'an is the not from God will keep disrupting the discussion for the satisfaction of their ego.
-
Leyla is only here to support her majnu at ANY COST. I remember the cat and mouse play some time ago.
That's just wrong and unjustified. -
What the heck are Ahmed and Mquran trying to achieve here? O I get it. The ?master-student? vendetta that teaches their own selves ?people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES about al-quraan yet claim to believe in Al-quraan's divine origin.? This crucial statement is going to haunt them forever and thank GOD for exposing it from them.
Danish, you're some kind of a desperado, aren't you? You need to resort to lies about me in order to feel big. When did I say the challenge is to 'another god' ? AB has his view which I disagree to. Why don't you address MY responses? Because you know, they will end up exposing the hollowness of your points. Why don't you call upon the 'essence of nature' (sic) to help you out there, pal? I really feel bad for those who have the misfortune of knowing you in real life.
A 'sura' is a coherent discourse about something. In this case, 2/21-22 has shown what that is, the existence of the human being in the world. His needs and what he needs to do to fulfil them. Of course, when we read in the unscientific way that you do, all we can come up with this is the typical Muhammadan tale of poetry comparison. It's just so pathetic when you think about it.
Go back and re-read my reply numbers 406, 407 and adhere and reply specially to what 412 is called for. As mentioned earlier, I am not going to remind and spoon feed you repetitiously and certainly I'm not going to respond to you unless 412 is met dilligently. Else keep grunting.
-
Danish, here is my response to your counter-response, after which there has been ZERO response from you. Full quota of rants and raves though. I tell you what, why don't you get a moderator to moderate a debate. Get the moderator to see who actually responds and who's a cowardly loser who refuses to submit his views to scrunity. What do you say to that?
Let me spell it out for you, ok
-
Danish says that 22/51 is a contradiction because as soon as a person tries to produce a sura like it, he will fit into the 22/51 criteria and thus be sentenced to hell.
-
My response to Danish is, please sir, learn to read. 22/51 doesn't talk about producing suras. It talks about striving against the signs of Allah. It describes this act in opposition to the aforementioned 22/50. Danish took it OUT OF CONTEXT in his poor, unscientific attempt to read al-quraan.
-
-
Danish, here is my response to your counter-response, after which there has been ZERO response from you. Full quota of rants and raves though. I tell you what, why don't you get a moderator to moderate a debate. Get the moderator to see who actually responds and who's a cowardly loser who refuses to submit his views to scrunity. What do you say to that?
Let me spell it out for you, ok
-
Danish says that 22/51 is a contradiction because as soon as a person tries to produce a sura like it, he will fit into the 22/51 criteria and thus be sentenced to hell.
-
My response to Danish is, please sir, learn to read. 22/51 doesn't talk about producing suras. It talks about striving against the signs of Allah. It describes this act in opposition to the aforementioned 22/50. Danish took it OUT OF CONTEXT in his poor, unscientific attempt to read al-quraan.
Did you even care to read my last post to you and re-read my reply #412 or do you need eyeglasses or better yet resurrect Aristotle to improve your comprehension level. Your above responses are just WINKS at best, nothing else. Get it? ???
-
-
Did you even care to read my last post to you and re-read my reply #412 or do you need eyeglasses or better yet resurrect Aristotle to improve your comprehension level. Your above responses are just WINKS at best, nothing else. Get it?
I have read them because unlike you, I want to discuss. Sadly, reply 412 doesn't acknowledge the INVALIDITY of your first critique. If you were sincere, you would first admit that your first critique is wrong and wasn't based upon anything but faulty translations. Secondly, you'd also admit that your total lack of Arabic wouldn't be helpful for the 'suralikeit' website.
When are we going to discuss 'essence of nature' ? I have a good laugh everytime I type it. You're good at coining terms but just display hot air when it comes to backing up, huh?
-
Did you even care to read my last post to you and re-read my reply #412 or do you need eyeglasses or better yet resurrect Aristotle to improve your comprehension level. Your above responses are just WINKS at best, nothing else. Get it?
I have read them because unlike you, I want to discuss. Sadly, reply 412 doesn't acknowledge the INVALIDITY of your first critique. If you were sincere, you would first admit that your first critique is wrong and wasn't based upon anything but faulty translations. Secondly, you'd also admit that your total lack of Arabic wouldn't be helpful for the 'suralikeit' website.
When are we going to discuss 'essence of nature' ? I have a good laugh everytime I type it. You're good at coining terms but just display hot air when it comes to backing up, huh?
LOOK WHO'S TALKING!
-
I believe Danish Enquirer and Agentxxx if keep posting against Qur'an deserve no reply. Ahmad Baghat has spend so much of his time explaining in detail the contradictions posted by Agentxxx and he still side with the people who post nonesence against Qur'an. People who believe Qur'an is the not from God will keep disrupting the discussion for the satisfaction of their ego.
Salam,
I don't think these are against the Quran. Though we have the right to critically evaluate the book whether it is from Allah. I believe it is from God because there are no contradictions in it. However, the understanding of the people of the past slighted clouded the meaning of it, especially when it come to translations. I think we need to reinterpret the Quran always, to the situation/circumstances that we are in.
Peace
-
I believe Danish Enquirer and Agentxxx if keep posting against Qur'an deserve no reply.
wtf?!
Ahmad Baghat has spend so much of his time explaining in detail the contradictions posted by Agentxxx and he still side with the people who post nonesence against Qur'an.
That may be how you see it. What i observe is that the "explanation" is mainly ad hoc posting of verses, and when people protest and tell why they disagree, the argumentation provided loops. Or turns into nothing but nitpicking, wich is why i personally chose to step down. It would seem that nothing good comes out of it, other than make come to the point of nonsensical ad hominem posts.
People who believe Qur'an is the not from God will keep disrupting the discussion for the satisfaction of their ego.
you just pulled that one our of your butt didnt you? I dont think people are saying that the book is not divinely inspired as many other great works. But i object to the notion that it should be the word of God 11. Tell me this, why is it that everything has to be coded in a way so you have to spend anormous amounts of time deciphering it, when it ALL comes down to some very simple ethical rules, that people who are aware figure out book or no book anyway.
dont kill, dont steal, dont waste you time on imaginary things, walk in peace etc. How come it always has to be made as cryptical as possible and wrapped into things that makes absolutely no sense, that makes sure to devide people into groups with each their pet truth, so sure of themself and their truth that other people dont deserve an answer to questions e.g.
Why is it that speaking outloud against a view on the Quran is so bad? I have seen nobody argue against the Quran as a message, but that is how it is taken for some reason. Why is it an attack?
peace
Whipping of porn actors? why? what is reasonable about whipping anyone?
-
-
I believe Danish Enquirer and Agentxxx if keep posting against Qur'an deserve no reply.
wtf?!
Ahmad Baghat has spend so much of his time explaining in detail the contradictions posted by Agentxxx and he still side with the people who post nonesence against Qur'an.
That may be how you see it. What i observe is that the "explanation" is mainly ad hoc posting of verses, and when people protest and tell why they disagree, the argumentation provided loops. Or turns into nothing but nitpicking, wich is why i personally chose to step down. It would seem that nothing good comes out of it, other than make come to the point of nonsensical ad hominem posts.
People who believe Qur'an is the not from God will keep disrupting the discussion for the satisfaction of their ego.
you just pulled that one our of your butt didnt you? I dont think people are saying that the book is not divinely inspired as many other great works. But i object to the notion that it should be the word of God 11. Tell me this, why is it that everything has to be coded in a way so you have to spend anormous amounts of time deciphering it, when it ALL comes down to some very simple ethical rules, that people who are aware figure out book or no book anyway.
dont kill, dont steal, dont waste you time on imaginary things, walk in peace etc. How come it always has to be made as cryptical as possible and wrapped into things that makes absolutely no sense, that makes sure to devide people into groups with each their pet truth, so sure of themself and their truth that other people dont deserve an answer to questions e.g.
Why is it that speaking outloud against a view on the Quran is so bad? I have seen nobody argue against the Quran as a message, but that is how it is taken for some reason. Why is it an attack?
peace
Whipping of porn actors? why? what is reasonable about whipping anyone?
;D